When is enough money....enough?

Someone in another thread brought up an excellent point - why aren't Federer and Sampras playing these exhibition matches for charity, instead of their own fat wallets? Both have won 40 million USD from playing tennis, both have earned 2 or 5 or 10 times that from endorsements, both are undoubtedly set for life and 100 lives after that.

By playing for a charity, not only could they have used their celeb power to find venues and promoters for free, but they would also have brought massive awareness to a charity as well. The net outcome would be millions of dollars to charity from ticket sales & tv advertising, and then millions of dollars saved in advertising for the charity.

Last night on Letterman I saw Bill Clinton, advertising his new book 'Giving'. Great idea, write a book about charitable donations, increase awareness, encourage people to give. Fantastic. I then spent 5 mins scratching around the web to find out, let's say, hopefully confirm the hopefully obvious - that he would be doing this for nothing, giving his time to this project. And on the Bill Clinton Foundation website, I find this:

President Clinton is dedicating a portion of the book's proceeds to charities and nonprofits that are doing their part to change the world.

Do a little research on the charities these guys run and/or support. Each of them gives millions of dollars a year to charity. While they may charge for the exhibitions they are putting a portion of their total earnings toward a charity of their own choosing.

That issue aside, just because they earn a lot of money why should they work for free. That thought process just trickles down - Why doesn't the person making $100,000 per year give more to people who make less and really need it? Why doesn't the student with the 4.0 GPA give a point or two to the student who is not doing as well?

Success in one arena or another does not make a person greedy. With regard to President Clinton - I hardly consider his actions charitable but I applaud his effort. Rupert Murdoch is charitable - Net assets $36 Billion. Donations to charity - $35 Billion.

Bill and Melinda Gates; Approximately $58 Billion in assets - $48 Billion donated to their charity.

Do a little research on the charities these guys run and/or support. Each of them gives millions of dollars a year to charity. While they may charge for the exhibitions they are putting a portion of their total earnings toward a charity of their own choosing.

Click to expand...

I found the sentence (that still grates me) that I quoted in the OP above from a sub-site of the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton is thus, in my book, profiteering from a charity. He's having his book advertised by his charity, and not giving all of the returns to that (or another) charity.

When it comes to Clinton, I'm temporarily disappointed enough to be beyond caring what other charities he supports, I'm sure I'll mellow over time.

For Fed and Sampras - it just disappoints me. Tennis has made them unimaginably rich, and now they're simply using tennis outside the formal structure to earn more. When is enough enough? Clearly earning $40 million isn't enough....

That issue aside, just because they earn a lot of money why should they work for free. That thought process just trickles down - Why doesn't the person making $100,000 per year give more to people who make less and really need it?

Click to expand...

They already do - formally in the mode of taxes, but that doesn't count as it's regulated.

Informally, well I hope anyone in a good situation earning 100k is giving plenty, and that's part of why I wrote this post/thread. someone earning 10k can give $10 and change someone's life in a bigger way than many would ever imagine.

I found the sentence (that still grates me) that I quoted in the OP above from a sub-site of the Clinton Foundation.

Clinton is thus, in my book, profiteering from a charity. He's having his book advertised by his charity, and not giving all of the returns to that (or another) charity.

When it comes to Clinton, I'm temporarily disappointed enough to be beyond caring what other charities he supports, I'm sure I'll mellow over time.

For Fed and Sampras - it just disappoints me. Tennis has made them unimaginably rich, and now they're simply using tennis outside the formal structure to earn more. When is enough enough? Clearly earning $40 million isn't enough....

They already do - formally in the mode of taxes, but that doesn't count as it's regulated.

Informally, well I hope anyone in a good situation earning 100k is giving plenty, and that's part of why I wrote this post/thread. someone earning 10k can give $10 and change someone's life in a bigger way than many would ever imagine.

Click to expand...

$10,000 a year is way below the poverty line OO. People are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and feed their children (and themselves) at that salary.

People always try to earn as much money as possible because their needs are unlimited. Therefore, Federer and Sampras, despite earning 100s of millions in their careers, still try to earn more money to fullfill their endless needs.

Your lifestyle expands to your income. It also shrinks to it. You learn this in my line of work where your income is very variable. I learnt it the hard way.

I have a policy of giving a percentage to charity, the more I make the more they get. I think if I was ever in the kind of position that these guys are in I would have to have a serious sit down and think to myself though about what kind of a person I was. But then I thought that years ago and it didn't happen, the percentage stayed the same but I just bought more stuff with the rest. That said it wasn't even close to their situation. I'm a different person now though so I think things wouldn't be the same again.

What do you think Orange, what is the magic number? For some reason I always had 8 digits in my head.

I'm positive that each of these guys give more of a percentage of their profits to charity than you do!!!! Besides, they have a right to exploit their hard work and talent to whatever money comes their way!!!

When people choose to do things in their lives is their own business. Warren Buffet amassed about 38 billion dollars in his investing career and then not long ago donated about 35 billion of it to the Gates Foundation, which is very judicious in supporting excellent causes. I think people in their 20s and 30s, like Fed and Sampras, may wish to hang on to their money until later in life, at which point they may, like Buffet, do more noble things with it. Easy to understand when you've essentially exhausted most of your earning power with maybe 50 years left in your life. None of us knows exactly how much each of these guys gives to charity. We know Fed gives his time (more precious to him than money, perhaps) to South African children's causes. These guys earned their money, they didn't steal it. If they want to hold on to it for a few years, that's okay with me.

I'm positive that each of these guys give more of a percentage of their profits to charity than you do!!!! Besides, they have a right to exploit their hard work and talent to whatever money comes their way!!!

Click to expand...

Huuhh??? I seriously doubt it! Especially if you mean by "profits", the amount of money above what they need to subsist.

Huuhh??? I seriously doubt it! Especially if you mean by "profits", the amount of money above what they need to subsist.

Click to expand...

Who the hell are you to think you know what anyone else needs or deserves to make- Are you intending to be God-even God leaves the decision and the right to give a gift to the individual. I'm appauled at the ignorance you breed by your comment. Your comments are communist driven- and we all know how succesfull communism has been over the last 100 years! The point really isn't about what one needs to subsist, rather what the indivdual is capable of making and enjoying thru talents and hard work. I also have found that, in my experience, anyone who makes such an ignorant comment like this is one who excels in mediocraty and relies on everyone else for everything, with a mentality driven by a sense of entitlement.

Who the hell are you to think you know what anyone else needs or deserves to make-

Are you intending to be God-even God leaves the decision and the right to give a gift to the individual.

I'm appauled at the ignorance you breed by your comment.

Your comments are communist driven- and we all know how succesfull communism has been over the last 100 years! The point really isn't about what one needs to subsist, rather what the indivdual is capable of making and enjoying thru talents and hard work.

I also have found that, in my experience, anyone who makes such an ignorant comment like this is one who excels in mediocraty and relies on everyone else for everything, with a mentality driven by a sense of entitlement.

Click to expand...

Hhmmmm, where to begin? Where to begin...

First, please show me where I claimed to "know what anyone else needs or deserves to make".

In answer to your question: Yes I am clearly claiming to be God :roll:. I am glad you alone have figured this out, you must be quite intuitive.

I completely understand your "appauling" ignorance.

As to Communism, in my post, I quite plainly noted in footnotes#s 3 & 5 many examples of very successful Communist states, so you are definitely off base there...

I will have to defer to your expertise in "mediocraty", since you are much more experienced in that than myself.

each person will have their own thoughts and personal feelings on the subject. i don't think you can give a dollar amount and say that is "Enough". some people need only enough to survive, while others will never have enough.

i personally feel that pro athletes, celebrities, etc, are way overpaid and should not be making anywhere near the amount of money they pull in. however, i don't blame them for agreeing to massive contracts or anything. they are doing what they do, and are bettering their lives.

a side note on talking about money. seems to me like a lot of people mix up the terms "needs" and "wants". i do not think needs are unlimited, but i do think wants can be. but there is a big difference between the 2.

a side note on talking about money. seems to me like a lot of people mix up the terms "needs" and "wants". i do not think needs are unlimited, but i do think wants can be. but there is a big difference between the 2.

Click to expand...

important point.

And another point... about how people worked so they deserve that massive amount of money... um... like federer, sampras, anybody, I guarantee has probably never worked as hard as some 10 year old in india doing 14 hours a day manual labor, or some 13 girl selling herself as prostitute.. get real people. If some how "hard work" meant you deserved millions, then give it to those kids. And playing a game for gods sake.

And another point... about how people worked so they deserve that massive amount of money... um... like federer, sampras, anybody, I guarantee has probably never worked as hard as some 10 year old in india doing 14 hours a day manual labor, or some 13 girl selling herself as prostitute.. get real people. If some how "hard work" meant you deserved millions, then give it to those kids. And playing a game for gods sake.

Click to expand...

We live in a mostly merit based society. In a merit based society you are mainly paid according to how easily you are replaced, and how important you are to making others money.

Actors and athletes make alot of money because the products that they produce make alot of money. If sports franchise owners could build stadiums, obtain TV contracts and sellout stadiums with out having athletes they WOULD. Now since the owners are making HUNDREDS of millions, don't the players deserve their 20%. Same with Actors Tom Cruise/Denzel Washington don't make 20 Million a movie because execs like them and want to make them rich. It's because they know that the EXACT same movie will make a minimum of 20 million more with them, and probably much more.

I'm going to explain why being payed for charity events is very beneficial for both sides.

I would be interested if they charge the same amount for a 100% charity event as they do for the prince of dubai or whatever. I'm guessing No but it would be interesting.

There's so much truth to the old saying you get what you pay for. As long as the tournament is paying something for services the person has an actual moral and contractual obligation to fulfill his commitments. This is a good situation for everyone also. When you are being paid, for most people you have a different mindset.

I work in IT. And if I do something free for a friend or the church or whatever it s' a different feeling than if I'm getting paid, even if I'm charging 1/3 of a fair market price.

I would like to win 30 million in the lottery. Any more would be greedy, but after taxes and investments, I figure I would have 10 to play around with and give away (living on the interest of my investments). Is that too much to ask?

I would like to win 30 million in the lottery. Any more would be greedy, but after taxes and investments, I figure I would have 10 to play around with and give away (living on the interest of my investments). Is that too much to ask?

Click to expand...

I would like 150-300Mil, after taxes. Rich but not so reach as to attract unwanted attention. I would be the random anonymous rich guy, and yeah I'm a greedy , bad person.

$10,000 a year is way below the poverty line OO. People are struggling to keep a roof over their heads and feed their children (and themselves) at that salary.

Click to expand...

I mentioned giving $10. I would contend that there are many people (most) people earning that little that still donate $10 here or there, or maybe in total. Many (very) poor people go to (and support) churches and other local bodies, etc etc.

Anyways - my point was perhaps more that giving $10 can change someone's life, especially in countries that are not as wealthy as canada / america / australia.

People always try to earn as much money as possible because their needs are unlimited. Therefore, Federer and Sampras, despite earning 100s of millions in their careers, still try to earn more money to fullfill their endless needs.

a side note on talking about money. seems to me like a lot of people mix up the terms "needs" and "wants". i do not think needs are unlimited, but i do think wants can be. but there is a big difference between the 2.

Click to expand...

Agreed. We need food, water, shelter, love, and probably a few other things. The dollar value of these things required for subsistence, even in western society, is quite little.

And another point... about how people worked so they deserve that massive amount of money... um... like federer, sampras, anybody, I guarantee has probably never worked as hard as some 10 year old in india doing 14 hours a day manual labor, or some 13 girl selling herself as prostitute.. get real people. If some how "hard work" meant you deserved millions, then give it to those kids. And playing a game for gods sake.

Click to expand...

Just out of curiosity, what percentage of your income did you give to "those kids," say, last year?

Agreed. We need food, water, shelter, love, and probably a few other things. The dollar value of these things required for subsistence, even in western society, is quite little..

Click to expand...

In western culture, and in the USA in particular, the economy is fueled by unhappiness. Corporations strive to keep us continually unhappy, incomplete, not fully realized, so that we're always ready to buy the next car, outfit, shoe, electronic gadget, pill, workout machine, tennis racket, vacation, or whatever, that promises to make us who we were truly meant to be. In the end, the most important thing in the world is having honest, meaningful, loving relationships with people. That's the only thing that can ever make you truly happy, but even there, I think the USA sort of works against you. If you're over 20 and living with your family, you're a loser. Now if you post on Craigslist and decide to live with a complete stranger, that's okay, but god forbid you decide to continue living with the people you love and trust the most in the world. We live in a very unnatural world.

We live in a mostly merit based society. In a merit based society you are mainly paid according to how easily you are replaced, and how important you are to making others money.

Click to expand...

Ahh, yes, you. I'm so glad you replied to this topic, I'm sure based on past comments you have so much to bring to it :neutral:.

We may live in a merit based society... those of us in western society AND those of us well above the poverty line. Those of us that can afford computers to have this discussion on, those of us who are guaranteed that there's an evening meal.

Open your eyes wider, drive that Corvette further than the local detailing shop...

Actors and athletes make alot of money because the products that they produce make alot of money.

Click to expand...

Yup, I understand all of that, although I appreciate that you were mostly replying to others...

I'm going to explain why being payed for charity events is very beneficial for both sides.

I would be interested if they charge the same amount for a 100% charity event as they do for the prince of dubai or whatever. I'm guessing No but it would be interesting.

There's so much truth to the old saying you get what you pay for. As long as the tournament is paying something for services the person has an actual moral and contractual obligation to fulfill his commitments. This is a good situation for everyone also. When you are being paid, for most people you have a different mindset.

I work in IT. And if I do something free for a friend or the church or whatever it s' a different feeling than if I'm getting paid, even if I'm charging 1/3 of a fair market price.

Click to expand...

^^ There, you do a very bad job of explaining your own point, and you make very little headway into "explaining why being paid for charity events is good for both sides". Also, perhaps curiously, I'm not even sure how that relates to my (or anyone else's) points.

This was a paid, non-charity exhibition.

I contended I would have liked it to be a non-paid, completely charity exhibition.

Neither of the above cases is a "paid, charity event".

As to your point of approaching work differently if you're being paid for it...well that's indeed up to your own moral conscience. As for you doing work "for the church"... I just can't bring myself to touch that one!

In western culture, and in the USA in particular, the economy is fueled by unhappiness. Corporations strive to keep us continually unhappy, incomplete, not fully realized, so that we're always ready to buy the next car, outfit, shoe, electronic gadget, pill, workout machine, tennis racket, vacation, or whatever, that promises to make us who we were truly meant to be. In the end, the most important thing in the world is having honest, meaningful, loving relationships with people. That's the only thing that can ever make you truly happy, but even there, I think the USA sort of works against you. If you're over 20 and living with your family, you're a loser. Now if you post on Craigslist and decide to live with a complete stranger, that's okay, but god forbid you decide to continue living with the people you love and trust the most in the world. We live in a very unnatural world.

Click to expand...

Thanks for posting something, anything, to give me a little bit of faith in the people choosing to post in this thread. And it's a good perspective you have, we're in a keeping-up-with-the-joneses society, driving by mandated corporate greed.

And another point... about how people worked so they deserve that massive amount of money... um... like federer, sampras, anybody, I guarantee has probably never worked as hard as some 10 year old in india doing 14 hours a day manual labor, or some 13 girl selling herself as prostitute.. get real people. If some how "hard work" meant you deserved millions, then give it to those kids. And playing a game for gods sake.

Click to expand...

^^Sorry for missing your post, it too gives me some faith. Great point.

Someone once said to Hingis about her hard life, and she surprised me and gave a pretty upfront reply, saying her life wasn't hard. Lots of sleep, training (but there's only so much you can do), staying in nice hotels, eating great food, etc etc. At the very very top, pro tennis isn't hard work.

First, please show me where I claimed to "know what anyone else needs or deserves to make".

In answer to your question: Yes I am clearly claiming to be God :roll:. I am glad you alone have figured this out, you must be quite intuitive.

I completely understand your "appauling" ignorance.

As to Communism, in my post, I quite plainly noted in footnotes#s 3 & 5 many examples of very successful Communist states, so you are definitely off base there...

I will have to defer to your expertise in "mediocraty", since you are much more experienced in that than myself.

Click to expand...

I don't know where it is that you stated examples of several communist states that are succesful, so if you'd please be so kind as to list them off for me, I'd like to find out what on earth you're smoking. As for your 9th grade play on words tactic for debating some accusatory statements against what you think everyone else MUST give to those either less fortunate or too mediocre to find any mesure of success in their own lives (just like your sorry self), I was hoping and expecting for a more intelligent response from you. I guess I was just hoping that I was mistaken when accusing you of being mediocre, your reply clearly proves me right, however.
You didn't have to claim to know what anyone else needs or deserves to make, your replies and your obvious stance on this issue is telling enough. Anyone who believes that forcing anyone to give what they've worked hard to earn is using the mentality of a 6 year old to give solutions to the world's complicated problems. I was just hoping you'd give me more to defend you views with. I guess I was right about you!

Technically all we need is air, water and food. However, it is criminal not to provide more. Therefore, how does society define what someone needs?

Click to expand...

Nobody brought up criminality.

Needs are subjective, just like wants.

Click to expand...

Needs are not subjective in the way that it was used by the poster who first brought it up. Needs, in that case, is defined as something without which you can't live for long. Yes, if you want to change the definition then it becomes more subjective, and a person may in fact need a solid gold toilet.

I would like to win 30 million in the lottery. Any more would be greedy, but after taxes and investments, I figure I would have 10 to play around with and give away (living on the interest of my investments). Is that too much to ask?

Click to expand...

I'm somewhat shocked... at the above, and at you, and many others completely missing the point of my thread.

My question was mostly rhetorical in shock at how insanely greedy some people are, I wasn't actually expecting you and rich76 and others to lay claim to a dollar figure.

Who the hell are you to think you know what anyone else needs or deserves to make- Are you intending to be God-even God leaves the decision and the right to give a gift to the individual. I'm appauled at the ignorance you breed by your comment. Your comments are communist driven- and we all know how succesfull communism has been over the last 100 years! The point really isn't about what one needs to subsist, rather what the indivdual is capable of making and enjoying thru talents and hard work. I also have found that, in my experience, anyone who makes such an ignorant comment like this is one who excels in mediocraty and relies on everyone else for everything, with a mentality driven by a sense of entitlement.

Click to expand...

Apart from having the grammatical skills of a 10 (7?) year old, you really haven't said much in the above....other than that you'd probably get along well with rich76!

You both have the "work / effort = earning potential" attitude to life, which is great, except you forget that work & effort only yields rewards in areas of opportunity and relative prosperity.

Well, it seemed like he had some pretty strong feelings on this subject, was wondering, just out of curiosity, if he felt strongly enough to live by his words. If he feels this strongly and even HE doesn't give till it hurts, not sure why he would be incredulous as to why other people wouldn't.

I don't know where it is that you stated examples of several communist states that are succesful, so if you'd please be so kind as to list them off for me, I'd like to find out what on earth you're smoking.

Click to expand...

Hmmm. Can you not see LuckyR was using irony to point out that in no way had he referenced Communism, and in no way should you have dragged it in and then pretended to "win" a discussion point based on it. The irony was plain to see....

As for your 9th grade play on words tactic for debating some accusatory statements against what you think everyone else MUST give to those either less fortunate or too mediocre to find any mesure of success in their own lives (just like your sorry self), I was hoping and expecting for a more intelligent response from you. I guess I was just hoping that I was mistaken when accusing you of being mediocre, your reply clearly proves me right, however.

Click to expand...

Wow - what - 80 or 100 words used, and not a point to be seen other than "I'm right you're wrong"!

You didn't have to claim to know what anyone else needs or deserves to make, your replies and your obvious stance on this issue is telling enough. Anyone who believes that forcing anyone to give what they've worked hard to earn is using the mentality of a 6 year old to give solutions to the world's complicated problems. I was just hoping you'd give me more to defend you views with. I guess I was right about you!

Click to expand...

More of the same.... Can you not see that while no-one can really "force" people to do something, they can see if action (or inaction) is wrong? If I have a tourniquet, and someone is bleeding to death, I'm not obliged to put it on them, but I indeed would. You'd be free to judge me on either action or inaction, just as I (and others) can judge what other people do too...

I don't know where it is that you stated examples of several communist states that are succesful, so if you'd please be so kind as to list them off for me, I'd like to find out what on earth you're smoking. As for your 9th grade play on words tactic for debating some accusatory statements against what you think everyone else MUST give to those either less fortunate or too mediocre to find any mesure of success in their own lives (just like your sorry self), I was hoping and expecting for a more intelligent response from you. I guess I was just hoping that I was mistaken when accusing you of being mediocre, your reply clearly proves me right, however.
You didn't have to claim to know what anyone else needs or deserves to make, your replies and your obvious stance on this issue is telling enough. Anyone who believes that forcing anyone to give what they've worked hard to earn is using the mentality of a 6 year old to give solutions to the world's complicated problems. I was just hoping you'd give me more to defend you views with. I guess I was right about you!

I'm positive that each of these guys give more of a percentage of their profits to charity than you do!!!!

Click to expand...

They probably do, I'm not sure what your point is?

shwetty[tennis]balls;1898020 said:

Besides, they have a right to exploit their hard work and talent to whatever money comes their way!!!

Click to expand...

Agreed, they do. I don't think anyone is disputing this, I think Orange is trying to make a point that his conscience would not permit him to live that livestyle with that money, not that they should not be allowed to earn it.

OP: I think the point I was trying to make with the dollar figure was not what I would be happy with. I can understand some people wanting to make lots of money and be successfull. I do however think that anyone over 8 digits has a different outlook on life to me.

I used to think that the point was money and posessions. I had those and lost them and came to realise that I valued different things. I think you are right to be disillusioned with society's focus on wealth. I see it every day and wonder at it. As the song says money can't buy you love.

I would say that for me personally I would be happy with a good middle class life. The key is enough to give your children a good life and a good start in life.